Jharkhand High Court
Hari Narayan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 7 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2018
----
Hari Narayan Prasad ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director, Panchayati Raj
Directorate, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
4. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Palamau.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Parishad, Palamau. ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
----
8/ 07.07.2021 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the
respondent authorities to disburse his entire retiral benefits.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner
superannuated from service on 31.12.2006, yet till date, substantial retiral
benefits have not been disbursed to him. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that only an amount of Rs.3,12,040/- has been paid to the petitioner on
account of earned leave, though admittedly, the petitioner on that head alone,
is entitled to get much more. He further submits that the gratuity and other
retiral benefits have not been paid to the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad submits that an amount
of Rs.13,41,772/- is due, which is to be paid to the petitioner on account of
post retirement benefit. It has further been submitted that due to paucity of
fund, the said amount cannot be disbursed. He further submits that not only
the petitioner, but also other employees, those who superannuated sometime
in the year 2006 onwards, have also not been paid the post retiral benefits, by
the Zila Parishad, due to paucity of fund. He also refers a judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.7564 of 2012 [Sadhu
Sharan Singh & Another versus The State of Jharkhand & Others], wherein
Zila Parishad was directed to frame a scheme for paying the retiral benefits of
its employees. He also submits that in the aforesaid judgment, direction was
given to Zila Parishad to pay retiral dues of its employees in reasonable
installments. He also submits that the aforesaid judgment is in respect of Zila
Parishad, Daltonganj. He lastly submits that in terms of the said judgment, the
retiral benefits will be paid in installments to the employees, once the fund is
made available.
4. Pension, post retirement benefits are not a bounty, but a social
welfare measure. These benefits are a post retirement entitlement to maintain
the dignity of an employee. Pension is succor for post retirement period. The
basis of grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee to
live with dignity in his winter of life. Thus, payment of such benefit should not
be unreasonably denied or delayed. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
versus Smt. Dinavahi Laxmi Kameswari in Civil Appeal No.399 of 2021,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that salaries and pension are rightful
entitlement of government employees and in case of delay, they should be
paid with interest. Direction to pay interest on delayed payment of post
retirement benefit suggest that, those benefits should be paid immediately on
superannuation. Delay is not acceptable nor there can be any delay in
disbursing the same. Thus, post retirement benefits are not mere bounties nor
are they given out of generosity of the employer. An employee earns these
benefits by virtue of his long continuous faithful unblemished service.
5. Once a person enters in the service, it is known to all, including
the employer that he will superannuate on a particular date. The employee,
who already knows his date of superannuation, prepares for his post
retirement life. Planning for a post retirement life is based on the post
retirement benefits, which he is entitled to receive. He, more or less, knows the
amount, which he will receive, post retirement and plans accordingly. Similarly,
the employer also knows when his employee will superannuate and it is
expected that they should also plan accordingly, so that the post retirement
benefits are paid immediately on superannuation of an employee. If the
superannuation benefits are paid in installments, which is spread over a span
of time, the basic purpose of paying the post retirement benefits gets
frustrated. The person, who superannuates, plans his future basing on the
amounts, which are paid lump-sum on his superannuation. These benefits
become his capital for the rest of his life. By investing the said amount and on
its earnings, like interest, he maintains himself for the rest of his life. If this
amount of post retirement benefit is paid in installments, which is spread over
for a considerable period, then such amount, if so paid, is not the capital for
the retired employee. The money gets extinguished on month to month basis
and after some time, it will become very difficult for the employee to sustain.
The capital wanes off and after a short span, nothing remains with him. So,
post retirement benefits, viz. gratuity, leave encashment etc. are paid in lump-
sum soon after retirement of the employee from service. If these amounts are
paid in installments, it frustrates the very purpose. It also delays payment of
the post retirement benefits. The excuse of non-availability of fund to pay post
retirement benefits is not tenable in the eyes of law as the employer very well
knows as to when his employee is to superannuate and it is expected that the
planning should be made accordingly.
6. The respondent herein is a statutory body, who is taking a plea
that there is no fund to pay the retirement benefits. This plea cannot be
accepted. Neither the plea that they will form a scheme so that the retirement
benefits can be paid in installments, be accepted by this Court. Considering
the status of the respondents, this Court feels that the corporate veil should be
lifted and the right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, so far as employees are concerned, must be protected.
The principles, laid down in the case of Kapila Hingorani versus The State
of Bihar decided on 9th May, 2003, as reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1, should be
applied and the State should be directed to give financial assistance to the
municipalities for payment of post retirement benefits of their employees. This
financial assistance can be by way of grant or loan. There cannot be any
scheme for paying post retiral benefits, that too in installments. This type of
scheme, prima facie, is against the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Since the respondent Municipality is heavily relying upon an order
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7564 of 2012 and
submits that the retirement benefits will be paid in installment as directed by
the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No.7564 of 2012, after formulating a scheme,
to which I am not in agreement with, this matter be referred to a Division
Bench of this Court, to decide the issues. The broader issues, which need to
be considered are as follows: -
(a) Whether post retiral benefits, which are supposed to be paid in
lump-sum, can be paid in installments, spreading over a period of
time, to the retired employee?
(b) Whether payment of post retiral benefits in installments
infringes the right to life of a retired employee?
(c) Whether "non availability of fund" can be a ground to delay the
payment of retiral benefits?
(d) Whether in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kapila Hingorani versus The State of Bihar
reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 the concept of lifting of veil be applied
in cases of Statutory Bodies / Corporations and Municipalities,
and the State be directed to provide grant / aid for payment of
retiral benefits?
Let this matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
placing it before an appropriate Division Bench.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
